First Lunch, Now Dinner

Given a second term First Lady Michelle Obama (She of the spreading butt.) will have food police inside your home choosing every item you feed your children.

In her war on Childhood Obesity, (Forget her war on her spreading butt.) Michelle Obama implemented a new Lunch program that has left our children hungry and without energy during the school day.

Responding to concerns that students are throwing away the healthy food on their cafeteria trays, the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged that adapting to the changes "may be challenging at first, as students are introduced to new flavors and foods in the cafeteria."

But the government also says parents can help school make the taste-transition easier:

"We know that many parents are already making changes at home to help the whole family eat healthier," the USDA blogged on Monday. "We recommend reviewing school menus with kids at home and working to incorporate foods that are being served at school into family meals as much as possible."

A recent video produced by high school students in Kansas mocked the healthy school lunches, showing young athletes fainting from starvation. "We are hungry," they lip-synched, as one by one they topple over.

The USDA blog appears to be a response to that satire:

"We know it is important that students get the calories and nutrition they need to stay alert and energized through the day, and schools are doing a number of things to make sure this happens," wrote Dr. Janey Thornton, USDA's deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services.

Schools can "allow kids a certain amount of flexibility to choose only the foods they intend to eat," the blog said. "We refer to this as “offer vs. serve” (OVS). OVS allows students to decline one or two of the food items offered in a school lunch. Schools can decide how to implement OVS, including which grades and how many items can be declined."

As CNSNews.com previously reported, the public school system in Fairfax County, Va., requires students to select a serving of fruit or vegetables for the reduced school-lunch price to apply.

The U.S.D.A.'s Thornton noted that "while some of the new school meals are different," most schools still serve "old favorites" -- although the chicken nuggets are now baked instead of fried, and and pizza slices come with lower-fat cheese and more vegetable toppings.

"Still, we don’t want students to make a habit of skipping unfamiliar fruits and veggies and other new healthy items," she said.

In addition to parental involvement, the USDA is encouraging schools to offer taste tests in which students provide "feedback" on meals to food service staff.

Source

Try forcing a picky eater to eat a food they don't like, want or hate.  It is almost impossible.  Now try forcing a family to eat what the government orders them to.  I wouldn't put it pass Michelle Obama and her team of Food Nazis.  And while most families are changing their eating habits, it is not due to eating healthily but to the fact they can't afford food.

Another 4 years of Obama and the government will be able to control every aspect of our lives.  Already in the City of New York, the mayor there has already started the process.

Corporate Social Responsibility & Going Green

A great article by Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center. This man knows his stuff when it comes to Agenda 21 and all things green:

Why Private Industry Keeps Telling Us to “Go Green”

I’ve sounded the alarm over the dangers of Sustainable Development and the agenda for top-down control through what proponents call the “Three Es,” which includes the Environment, the Economy, and Social Equity. A fourth rail to imposing Agenda 21 is called Corporate Social Responsibility. It is the direct result of the merging of the Three Es. CSR is the map to understanding why corporations are actively promoting the “green” agenda – even to the detriment of their own business.

Picture, if you will, an Isosceles triangle. And label each point: 1.Government Power 2. Corporate Money 3. NGOs Agenda

The truth is, corporations aren’t always willing players in the partnerships – neither is government, for that matter. Many times both are answering to pressure from activists with a specific agenda.

Those activists come in the form of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They are determined, dedicated and radical. They mean business and they have the means to force their will on companies. It’s almost masochistic to watch how they treat companies.

Perhaps you’ve heard the term Corporate Social Responsibility. The idea is that corporations must not conduct their affairs merely to achieve profits for their stockholders – or even to just provide products and services for their customers. According to the doctrine, businesses must also help further the “well-being of society.” You know, “like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” To many businesses the term means treating customers, employees and suppliers with respect and integrity, while making sure you aren’t damaging the environment. It’s just good business.

But something much more sinister has control over the force of corporate social responsibility. As Niger Innis, president of the Congress on Racial Equality, points out, the ideological environmental movement is a powerful $4 billion-a-year U.S. industry. On the international level it’s an $8 billion-a-year gorilla.

Many of its members are intensely eco-centric, and place much higher value on wildlife and ecological values than on human progress or even human life. They have a deep fear and loathing of big business, technology, chemicals, plastics, fossil fuels and biotechnology. And they insist that the rest of the world should acknowledge and live according to their fears and ideologies.

They are masters at using junk science, scare tactics, intimidation and bogus economic and health claims to gain even greater power. These people, with their radical political agenda are now succeeding in forcing Corporate Social Responsibility on more and more companies.

They assert the right to dictate corporate social responsibility by declaring themselves stakeholders, even though their only stake is philosophical. In most cases, they have no economic interest in the companies.

They place ever-increasing demands on business to take ever more radical measures in the name of protecting the environment or in the name of social equity. Products have been banned. Even whole industries have been destroyed.

Here’s an example of the power of this force tied to Sustainable Development policies is an incident that took place in Ireland. There, McDonalds applied to build a new restaurant in a community. The government demanded an environmental impact study for the project. Now, that’s not so unusual. Only this environmental study wasn’t concerning the building of the restaurant. Rather, it was to study the effects of the food to be served on the health of the residents of the community.

McDonalds has been beaten to a pulp over the issue of obesity, human health and animal rights. The leading NGO in this fight is a radical nut-group called the Center for Science in the Public Interest which openly advocates that people eat next to nothing. No meat, no farm animals at all, no dairy, just basically some pre-selected vegetables. They are a constant thorn in the side of the Food and Drug Administration, constantly filing law suits to control food choice. They are the leaders of the infamous food police. And they hate McDonalds as much as they hate letting you decide what you want to eat.

As a result of these attacks, today McDonalds is in the forefront of promoting the green agenda. Now you may understand why the city of San Francisco recently targeted McDonald’s Happy Meals to be banned. CSR is rampant in public schools where zealots are busy working to control what children eat. Never mind that a child may go hungry because he/she refuses to eat tofu. Meanwhile, to make the controls work, corporate monsters like McDonalds must also be kept from tempting children with something they might like. All for the common good, of course.

Another example of corporate masochism comes from Caterpillar, the equipment giant that provides machinery for the mining industry. A few years ago, Caterpillar announced it was joining the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which is lobbying for caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

If USCAP reaches its goal for mandatory federal restrictions on the emissions, the cost of energy will be driven up, hurting Caterpillar’s customers and shareholders. When asked if he had done a cost analysis on this policy before joining USCAP, the Chairman of Caterpillar said he had not and would not. Therefore, he was blindly endorsing a policy that could put his own company out of business.

Why? Because he has been forced to accept a political agenda over business sense. To do otherwise would mean possible government sanctions, regulations or fines. It’s the new way to do business in America. It’s the force of the triangle. That’s Corporate Social Responsibility. It isn’t responsible at all. And it’s not very corporate. It’s enforcement of a political agenda.

Many times these issues begin with what appears to be completely absurd press releases by obscure fringe groups. But businesses must not ignore the source of their rants. Once they begin to give sanction to small demands in an attempt to put on a good face – the bar will be continually raised until the business becomes merely a tool for a political agenda that is in direct opposition to their ability to stay in business as the mantra of “Go Green” results in higher prices, sacrifice and fewer choices for consumers.

Well said. But every corporation knows that the moment profits (dividends) drop to a certain level, is the moment this nonsense stops. The main business of business is to make profits, not to help the world. In some cases they do both, and that is good. Not just for the communities they are in, but also for their image in the public. But let the profits, the dividends drop below a certain level, every CEO knows he/she will be out of a job and a new man/woman taking the helm instead.